Submission: Refusing dialogue hinders progress in conflict resolution

By members of Hillel at UCLA, Bruins for Israel and J Street U at UCLA

Imagine a conversation in which one party starts by saying, “Sure, let’s talk. Just do me a favor: Agree with my positions in advance so that we can go ahead and start.”

Obviously, this makes no sense. One who expects to be heard must also be willing to listen. It’s basic quid pro quo. Gaining some mutual understanding is the only way to work through conflict while valuing the dignity of another.

Yet, this week, Bruin Plaza is occupied by a group which desperately wants your attention but has expressly stated an unwillingness to listen to divergent opinions. Their constitution states: “We (Students for Justice in Palestine) will not participate in collaborative or dialogue projects unless they are ‘based on unambiguous recognition of Palestinian rights and framed within the explicit context of opposition to occupation.’”

To be fair, members of Students for Justice in Palestine and their constitution argue that they believe that dialogue “normalizes” a situation which they feel should never be normalized. However, it’s speaking with others, in fact, that is understood to be normal human behavior.

We believe that college is the opportunity of a lifetime to grow personally, to learn and to tolerate – all while continuing to disagree. Surrounded by more than 40,000 students from more than 100 countries, this is the first opportunity most students have to personally engage individuals from nearly every category of diversity imaginable.

Engaging in conversation and cultivating genuine curiosity, as opposed to insisting upon dogmatic decree or debating, are essential to truly learning about our differences. Realizing that others have information and experiences different from one’s own is fundamental to creating a realistic portrait of our community and fostering a healthy campus climate.

It is true that Students for Justice in Palestine has called for debate. However, debate misses the point. Debate is characterized by contention, controversy and representational argument. It’s a forum for two sides with predetermined conclusions to make their best case, possibly educating the undecided in the process. But debate is not a mutual learning opportunity; only dialogue and listening can fill that purpose.

Conversely, a refusal to talk is a recipe for prejudice and a broken world. Furthermore, mocking dialogue, staging walkouts, delegitimizing causes and people themselves, and hissing or booing a speaker who has the floor are anathema to the university spirit, even when they are effective short-term political tactics.

We use “short-term” because, ultimately, in a society which values truth, these methods will never prevail. Those who believe that they have a monopoly on truth may be believed initially, but very few educated people take them seriously as the more complicated or nuanced “truth” comes to light.

Ironically, right now, Israeli and Palestinian representatives are speaking with each other daily in the pursuit of peace. Thus, we find ourselves confused by another line in SJP’s constitution, which states: “We as students in solidarity with Palestinians” refuse to engage in dialogue.

How can SJP be “in solidarity” with Palestinians, whose Palestinian Authority representatives are deliberately talking with Israelis, by not talking themselves? This begs a larger question for students on both sides of the conflict: Is it really possible to be in solidarity with two highly heterogeneous populations? Perhaps, in reality, none of us can actually represent much more than our own opinion.

It was the spirit of compromise, dialogue and mutual learning that led to an Israeli prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, shaking hands with Yasser Arafat, then-leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization, which launched the peace process more than 20 years ago.

Rabin considered Arafat to be a “terrorist and a murderer.” But to quote Rabin: “You don’t make peace with friends. You make it with very unsavory enemies.” The challenge of life isn’t getting along with friends – it’s learning to value and respect those with whom you disagree.

In the midst of writing this article, two leaders from SJP met with Rabbi Chaim Seidler Feller, an ardent promoter of peace at Hillel at UCLA, for more than two hours. It is our hope that this meeting represents a new openness not yet reflected in SJP’s constitution.

As joint signatories to this piece and individuals who are members of the staff and student leadership of Hillel at UCLA, Bruins for Israel and J Street U, we warmly welcome the opportunity to expand our knowledge by engaging in conversation and programming with all students on campus. And we welcome SJP’s call for an “honest pursuit of knowledge.” We simply challenge that an “honest pursuit” requires precisely the kind of dialogue and listening we have outlined above.

If you are part of the vast majority of curious or even passionate students on campus willing to have a dignified, transparent and accountable conversation – let’s get started!

Rabbi Aaron Lerner is the Senior Jewish Educator for Hillel at UCLA. Miriam Eshaghian is a fourth-year psychobiology student and president of Bruins for Israel. Gil Bar-Or is a first-year electrical engineering student and the co-chair of J Street U at UCLA. Dor Carpel is a fourth-year business economics student and co-chair of J Street U at UCLA. Tammy Rubin is a third-year, human biology and society student and a member of the Hillel Executive Board. Elyssa Schlossberg is a third-year psychobiology student and a member of the Hillel Executive Board. Brian Hertz is a second-year human biology and society student and a member of the Hillel Executive Board. Yael Glouberman is a second-year communication studies student and a member of the Hillel Executive Board.